Women in U.S. infantry (USMC, Rangers, etc. - merged)

[Good2Golf]

???

You mean CPT Griest and 1LT Haver also had a string of good for nothing boyfriends whom they were able to harness their inner power against and succeed, no matter what the recording industry Ranger school threw at them?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

???

You mean CPT Griest and 1LT Haver also had a string of good for nothing boyfriends or girlfriends whom they were able to harness their inner power against and succeed, no matter what the recording industry Ranger school threw at them?

 

[cld617]

That seems to be the common theme.  We just went through a similar spat of posts reference women in SAR.  Some people will just not accept that there are exceptional, talented, and motivated people of any gender, race, etc. who can achieve the high standards set on demanding courses.

As those posts were mine, I thought I'd chime in though as I'm being misrepresented. I do believe they can achieve those high standards, I never said anything to the tune that they could not. I just believe they get extra help to have the opportunity to prove themselves.

I share a similar sentiment towards the recent SAR graduates as authors of the above linked website do. I wholeheartedly congratulate them and would have no doubt they could provide me and mine the same level of care as anyone else who's graduated from CFSAR. My point was that given the lack of representation of both sexes in the past and a sudden increase to the tune of 1/4 of the class being female, I'm of the belief that beyond the control of those actively serving in the school, bean counters higher up stacked the deck in their favor. Read the following for a similar account of what took place to get these badass females through Ranger school.

Having imparted the upside of the Rangerette’s success, on now to the downside with two points: First of all, it turns out that at their duty stations the Rangerettes were given six months to train up for Ranger School. That is to say, their full duty day was dedicated to getting in shape and training for Ranger School…then go home.

In the day, it was customary for unit commanders to grant a portion of the duty day to a soldier who was going to try out for Delta selection a month prior to his selection date. That was usually one to two hours. While assigned to Key West, my commander granted me a big fat zero time to train up for Delta. I had to do all of my impossible train-up on my own time. As for the Rangerettes getting special treatment during the course—no. As for special treatment prior to the course, I have to say yes. What was the phrase I read from some article feedback? I believe it was, “stacking the deck.”

Read more: http://sofrep.com/42775/rangerettes-just-one-mans-opinion/#ixzz3jskckZ7k

 

[Good2Golf]

I like the part where Delta Dude:

had to do all of [his] impossible train-up on [his] own time.

Good for him, doing the impossible. 

SOCOM should clone that beard-wearing bad-ass so that they have more high-speed, low-drag, no-sparks operators to achieve the impossible.  :nod:



'Haters gonna hate!

  :

 

[daftandbarmy]

I like the part where Delta Dude:
Good for him, doing the impossible. 

SOCOM should clone that beard-wearing bad-*** so that they have more high-speed, low-drag, no-sparks operators to achieve the impossible.  :nod:



'Haters gonna hate!

  :

Methinks he doth protest too much

 

[Jarnhamar]

http://taskandpurpose.com/skyline/all-male-teams-outperform-mixed-gender-counterparts-in-usmc-infantry-test/

On Sept. 10, Marine Corps officials announced that all-male ground combat teams outperformed mixed-gender teams in nearly every aspect of a recent infantry integration test.

Data from the months-long experiment showed that mix-gendered teams performed at lower overall levels, completed tasks more slowly, and were less accurate shooters than all-male teams, reported Marine Corps Times. Female Marines also sustained significantly higher injury rates and had a lower physical fitness performance overall.

“I would characterize this as: There’s more to be learned,” said Col. Anne Weinberg, deputy director of the Marines’ Force Innovation Office. “There’s an opportunity to train and become stronger and to execute these tasks in a more lethal manner.”

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

http://taskandpurpose.com/skyline/all-male-teams-outperform-mixed-gender-counterparts-in-usmc-infantry-test/

Should we be surprised?  :dunno:

 

[dapaterson]

Need a lot more information to assess this.  Were experience levels the same in both groups?  Lower experience levels translate into lower performance and greater injury rates.  And, in fact, that was identified in the original Marine Times article:

While the experiment was closely controlled, there was a key experience gap: Many male task force volunteers came from combat units where they had previously served, while female volunteers came directly from infantry schools or from noncombat jobs. One task force unit, a provisional rifle platoon, attempted to mitigate this problem by comparing the performance of male and female troops who received no formal infantry training.

On the other hand, don't piss off women at a distance (or at least not if they have access to a .50 cal):

All-male teams were outperformed by mixed-gender teams on two tasks: accuracy in firing the 50-caliber machine gun in traditional rifleman units and the same skill in provisional units. Researchers did not know why gender-mixed teams did better on these skills, but said the advantage did not persist when the teams continued on to movement-under-load exercises.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/10/mixed-gender-teams-come-up-short-marines-infantry-experiment/71979146/

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Need a lot more information to assess this.  Were experience levels the same in both groups?  Lower experience levels translate into lower performance and greater injury rates.  And, in fact, that was identified in the original Marine Times article:

On the other hand, don't piss off women at a distance (or at least not if they have access to a .50 cal):

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/10/mixed-gender-teams-come-up-short-marines-infantry-experiment/71979146/

Women are better shots than men.  That is a fact and there are physiological reasons for that.  The female body provides a more stable platform for shooting due to weight being distributed more in the lowet body, particularly the hips. The question isn't are they better shots though, it's are they better shots under combat conditions. 

Put 50lbs of kit on someone and it's going to change how they shoot and how they move.  Women are generally physically weaker than men.  Substitute the title for "all-male teams outperform mixed-gender teams at NFL combine"  and you would say duh! 

 

[daftandbarmy]

What Tempers the Steel of an Infantry Unit


"An infantryman’s lot is to endure what we think is unendurable, to participate in the inhumane, and to thrive in misery."  :nod:


The current debate about women in the infantry takes place in an artificial context, because it nearly always self-limits the discussion to physical capabilities. Within these incomplete parameters, the argument is then set, and the preamble is that physical standards and performance are measurable and what is not measurable is subjective and probably unfair.

Once physical quantifications are set as the only requirement that matters, it then stands to reason that if you can define infantry requirements in terms of, for example, a number of pull-ups, a hike with 60 to 80 pounds of extra weight, or carrying a 180-pound simulated casualty to safety, then you can assess whether females are suited to infantry units.

Honest and informed observers will acknowledge that medical science indicates that, in the physical domain, the two genders are an unequal match. Even a very fit woman is not generally the equal of a fit man. The competition is no competition in aerobic capacity, load bearing, reach, body fat percentage, and other germane measures of combat fitness. But (the informed argument proceeds), even if it is only the top 5 percent of women who can replace the bottom 5 percent of men, why not allow the 5 percent to integrate and thereby improve the combat efficiency of the unit? For example, it has been argued Ronda Rousey — the accomplished and undoubtedly tough mixed martial artist — could be an excellent addition to an infantry unit.

The falsity of this debate is found in its restriction of analysis to its physical context (as most recently demonstrated in an article published yesterday at War on the Rocks). Why is the debate limited to physical capabilities? For two reasons. First, supporters of full integration will not accept what cannot be irrefutably proven (and sometimes not even then). Second, practitioners of infantry warfare have great difficulty describing the alchemy that produces an effective infantry unit, much as it is difficult for those of faith to explain their conviction to an atheist. Try that by quantitative analysis. But allow me a poor effort to explain what tempers the steel of an infantry unit and therefore serves as the basis of its combat power.

http://warontherocks.com/2015/09/what-tempers-the-steel-of-an-infantry-unit/

 

[vonGarvin]

The question isn't are they better shots though, it's are they better shots under combat conditions. 

Put 50lbs of kit on someone and it's going to change how they shoot and how they move.

The article specifically mentioned that.

Researchers did not know why gender-mixed teams did better on these skills, but said the advantage did not persist when the teams continued on to movement-under-load exercises.

They also talked about various physical attributes, such as aerobic and anaerobic levels, etc.

I doubt that the differences in performance was based solely on experience.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Are Rangers No Longer Leading the Way, but Being Led?

Unless you’ve been living in a foxhole or stuck in a cave sans your trusty iPhone/Pad/Pod/i-whatever, you have heard/saw/read about the continuing drama surrounding the Army’s shiny new female Ranger LTs. Just in case some of you only just recently exited said foxhole, I’ll sum it up real quick.


http://sofrep.com/43435/rangers-no-longer-leading-way-led/

 

[tomahawk6]

Dont confuse what Ranger School is with life in an infantry unit.Ranger School is a leadership course.The tab signifies graduation thats it.You can be in a Ranger battalion but not have gone to Ranger School.The members of the 1st Ranger Battalion wear this patch[scroll].Each of the 3 battalions have the same design with their number on it.

http://www.soc.mil/Rangers/1stBN.html

 

[cld617]

Are Rangers No Longer Leading the Way, but Being Led?

Unless you’ve been living in a foxhole or stuck in a cave sans your trusty iPhone/Pad/Pod/i-whatever, you have heard/saw/read about the continuing drama surrounding the Army’s shiny new female Ranger LTs. Just in case some of you only just recently exited said foxhole, I’ll sum it up real quick.


http://sofrep.com/43435/rangers-no-longer-leading-way-led/

Sadly this will be lost on many. I commented about it a few months prior, however everyone is so enamored with the fact that a woman is at the finish line that they refuse to scrutinize the path she took to get there. It is not equality when a mbr receives preferential treatment, both in preparation and vigilatin of performance, in accomplishing a task. The reality is this was a staged success, and anyone who points it out is labelled a sexist bigot and ostracized. God forbid now with Operation Honor, you'll likely be slapped with a harassment charge as well.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Links to your accusations please.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Cld617:

I don't know who you are, or what you do. Your profile says nothing (other than rank: corporal) and from you various past posts, I suspect you are Air Force, and Canadian Air Force at that.

But here goes nothing:

First, in my naval career, I have had the pleasure of working at times with US Marines and US Army Rangers. One of the things that has impressed me the most with both of them is their absolute dedication to the truth, as opposed to political correctness. They will tell it like it is no matter the consequences as they live in a world where anything less will cost lives.

So when those "Rangerettes" you talk about have other male members of their couse come out and publicly state that they were given no special favour and that they would follow these women anywhere, I take good notice.

I joined in 1975, a time when we started incorporating women in every role in the CAF. I can tell you those first trailblazers were better than their male counterparts. They had to be to be accepted and succeed. They could do it, proof that some women can, and want to.

Personnally, my suggestion to you would be, if you can't live with that, seek employment somewhere else, unless you can actually support your position with facts. 

 

[tomahawk6]

This issue is a political issue and not a military issue.Women have served at all levels of the US military and until recently in non-direct combat jobs and have served with distinction.

 

[cld617]

Links to your accusations please.

Links have already been provided, but there's more below.

So when those "Rangerettes" you talk about have other male members of their couse come out and publicly state that they were given no special favour and that they would follow these women anywhere, I take good notice.

I never claimed them to be treated any differently while exposed to their classmates, I've simply brought forward sources that suggest they were given preferential treatment to work up towards getting on course to begin with, a perk their male counterparts were not granted. You're proving my comments to be truthful, that you haven't fairly looked at the path leading to their success.

Do you really think their classmates are more informed to make claims to preferential treatment, or the DS who vigilate the course? Because there are several who are coming forward to share examples of their treatment.

Personnally, my suggestion to you would be, if you can't live with that, seek employment somewhere else, unless you can actually support your position with facts.

Once again my comment rings truth, speak out and be labelled a bigot. This is a matter of opposing accounts of the situation, however when you have so many members coming forward and the bulk of what contradicts it comes in the form of official statements by head sheds, you'll have to forgive me if I don't eagerly lap up what they're serving.

http://www.people.com/article/female-ranger-school-graduation-planned-advance

Women were first sent to a special two-week training in January to get them ready for the school, which didn't start until April 20. Once there they were allowed to repeat the program until they passed – while men were held to a strict pass/fail standard.

• Afterward they spent months in a special platoon at Fort Benning getting, among other things, nutritional counseling and full-time training with a Ranger.

• While in the special platoon they were taken out to the land navigation course – a very tough part of the course that is timed – on a regular basis. The men had to see it for the first time when they went to the school.

• Once in the school they were allowed to repeat key parts – like patrols – while special consideration was not given to the men.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Links have already been provided, but there's more below.

I never claimed them to be treated any differently while exposed to their classmates, I've simply brought forward sources that suggest they were given preferential treatment to work up towards getting on course to begin with, a perk their male counterparts were not granted. You're proving my comments to be truthful, that you haven't fairly looked at the path leading to their success.

Do you really think their classmates are more informed to make claims to preferential treatment, or the DS who vigilate the course? Because there are several who are coming forward to share examples of their treatment.

Once again my comment rings truth, speak out and be labelled a bigot. This is a matter of opposing accounts of the situation, however when you have so many members coming forward and the bulk of what contradicts it comes in the form of official statements by head sheds, you'll have to forgive me if I don't eagerly lap up what they're serving.

http://www.people.com/article/female-ranger-school-graduation-planned-advance

I agree with everything you say.  I've gotten past this sort of thing though because as long as the pay cheque keeps coming in, I don't give a rats *** who they let serve in the military anymore.  It's not that I don't care about standards, I very much do.  If the big green machine doesn't care though, than why should I?

At the end of the day, the politicians will use us for whatever "flavour du jour" will get them elected.  The best you can do is ignore the political-correctness and stupidity and try and do your job to the best of your ability.

I don't hold anything against these women, they were volunteers after all and the fact they stepped up to the plate should be commended.  The head sheds didn't do the selection but they stacked the deck as much as possible.

Feel free to flame away. 

 

[tomahawk6]

Again when the White House wants something they generally get it.No one likes it but they salute and try to make it work.I think the next occupant of the White House will reverse some of this.